Modern naval ships are typically designed to perform multiple types of missions, and are, therefore, referred to as “multi-mission” ships. For example, suppose a ship is designed for anti-submarine warfare, littoral warfare, and anti-mine warfare. Such a ship may include a deck that has a respective command/control station for each type of mission, i.e., a station for anti-submarine warfare, a station for littoral warfare, and a station for anti-mine warfare. The ship may also have a hull that, although not ideal for any particular type of mission, is at least compatible with all of the mission types for which the ship is designed.
One problem with such a multi-mission-type ship is that it is often larger than it needs to be for a single type of mission. For example, if a deck of the ship has a respective command/control station for each type of mission, then the deck, and most likely the ship, is bigger than it would be if it included only a single station for a single type of mission. Mulit-mission ships are, therefore, high-value capital assets, typically carry a large crew to support the various missions, and are generally operated only in regions where a high degree of protection is supplied by other friendly ships.
Another problem is that multi-mission-type ships are typically inefficient. For example, if the ship is designed to perform three types of mission and includes a respective command/control station for each mission type, then two of the three stations are typically unused when the ship is on a mission.
Furthermore, the hull of such a multi-mission ship is typically not ideal for any of the mission types for which the ship is designed. That is, if the hull is ideal for one type of mission, it may be incompatible with another type of mission. Therefore, when designing a hull that is compatible with multiple types of missions, a designer must often design the hull as a compromise across all missions.